ML20129B301
| ML20129B301 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Fermi  |
| Issue date: | 07/10/1985 |
| From: | Norelius C NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | Jens W DETROIT EDISON CO. |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20129B303 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8507150484 | |
| Download: ML20129B301 (4) | |
See also: IR 05000341/1985031
Text
p0
'
p
ol
g
-
- .
,
.
,
I
,.
J
'dDL 101985 /
.
Docket No. 50-341
The Detroit Edison Company
ATTN: Wayne H. Jens
Vice President
Nuclear Operations
6400 North Dixie Highway-
Newport, MI 48166
,
Gentlemen:
This refers to the special operational readiness team inspection conducted by
R. L. Hague, C. D. Anderson, J. C. Bjorgen, and A. D. Morrongiello of this
office on June 17 - June 21, 1985, of activities at Fermi 2 authorized by
Facility Operating License No. NPF-33 and to the discussion of our findings
with R. S. Lenart and other members of your. staff at the conclusion of the
inspection.
The enclosed copy of our inspection report identifies areas examined during
the inspection. Within these areas, the inspection consisted of a selective
examination of procedures and representative records, observations, and
interviews with personnel.
No items of noncompliance with NRC requirements were jdentified during the
course of this inspection.
Inspection team findings have been characterized
as program strengths, or weaknesses, as appropriate, and are documented in
Appendices A and B, respectively, to this letter.
You are requested to
respond to Appendix B within thirty (30) days of the receip.t of this letter,
stating actions taken or planned to improve weak areas.
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790:$f the Commisilba's regulations, a copy of
'
this letter and the enclosed inspection report will be placed in the NRC's
Public Document Room.
We will gladly discuss any questions.you have concerning this inspection.
Sincerely,
M{gIsl Tdgncd by E.C.. C'.'cenman"
C. E. Norelius, Director
Division of Reactor Projects
Enclosure:
Inspection Report
No. 50-341/85031(DRP)
See Attached List For Distribution
r$0
>
.
8507150484 850710
ADOCK 05000341
t
O
I
,
a
\\
.
,
The Detroit Edison Company
2
JUL 101985
Distribution
cc w/ enclosure:
L. P. Bregni, Licensing
Engineer
P. A. Marquardt, Corporate
Legal Department
DMB/ Document Control Desk (RIDS)
Resident Inspector, RIII
Ronald Callen, Michigan
Public Service Commission
Harry H. Voigt, Esq.
Nuclear Facilities and
Environmental Monitoring
Section
RIII
RIII
RIII
RIII_f,
'
f?RD
Af
j
,
RRD
ChrissofV
,cx
Hague /]y
1mos
Norelius
p
07/09/85
'
.
.
APPENDIX A
LICENSEE STRENGTHS
The inspection team noted specific features of the licensee's programs and
activities which have been characterized as strengths.
A strength is a
positive attribute or feature, which exceeds regulatory requirements, or an
innovative feature, which contributes to the safety or effectiveness of plant
activities.
A.
Excellent communication between operations personnel both during routine
operations, including shift turnover, and during accident drills at the
'
simulator.
B.
Procedures require immediate notification of out-of-specification sur-
veillance testing to the Nuclear Shift Supervisor.
C.
An active program to reduce nuisance annunciators is in progress.
D.
Licensee management conducts daily meetings with first line supervision.
These meetings are informative and promote interdepartmental
communications.
E.
Access to areas adjacent to the control boards is controlled by the
Nuclear Supervising Operator.
F.
Operator's knowledge of the plant and procedures were demonstrated
effectively at the simulator.
G.
The Health Physics Department is adequately staffed possesses sufficiant
instrumentation and has demonstrated a well thought-out program to handle
power escalation and maintenance.
.
APPENDIX B
LICENSEE WEAKNESSES
The inspection team has identified items of concern which have been character-
ized as weaknesses.
A weakness does not constitute a violation with regulatory
requirements, rather it is related to effectiveness of a program, activity,
or organization.
References are to paragraphs in Inspection Report 50-341/
85-031.
A.
Licensee does not maintain the out-of-specification log for a system
outage.
(paragraph 3)
B.
Independent verification is excluded if the expected dose would exceed
100 mrem.
(paragraph 3)
C.
There is a lack of feedback on the quality of maintenance procedures used
in the field.
(paragraph 4)
D.
Development of a maintenance work package may require an excessive amount
of time to support urgent work.
(paragraph 4)
E.
The revising of prints and training of operators after a plant modification
may not be timely.
(paragraph 4)
F.
There appears to be difficulties in the performance and review of
voluminous work packages.
(paragraph 4)
G.
Establishing communications during the performance of surveillance testing
is sometimes inconvenient.
(paragraph 5)
H.
There is an unrealistic time imposed by the action statement of Technical Specification 3.4.2.1.
(paragraph 7)
w_